Hacker News Reader

Comment by adventured | Hacker News Reader

Recording something permanently into a blockchain is the opposite of users having control over their data.

Blockchain does not appear to be the best way to build a decentralized system for user controlled data (such as a decentralized social network).

We already figured that system out: local software, local storage, open source, local permissions & controls. Billions of people have personal computing devices now. No blockchain is needed at all, that just adds entirely unnecessary bloat.

You shift the point of control back to the local device and away from the network. It is that simple, and it's how we largely used to control user data.

View on HN

I didn't necessarily say blockchain. Cryptocurrency and the blockchain is the incentivization structure, not necessarily the end product.

I agree. Blockchain only makes sense for things that require immutability which many applications do not. OpenBazaar is a good example of one of the applications I was thinking of.

Except you wouldn't use the blockchain to have control over their data", you'd use it for identity and verification. Facebook' #1 issue is fake news and Bot's. You can eliminate those problems entirely with a blockchain and smart contract that requires identity and proof of such.

How would you prove identity on a blockchain? You'd be worse equipped than Facebook. Are you suggesting some entity verify folks who sign up for this distributed social network? Make an Ehtereum contract to do it? Either way, this sounds dubious at best.

I think the idea is:

* Website gives person a unique code to broadcast on the blockchain to prove they have control over that identity

* 'Approved' services claim things publically about identities (eg age, allowed to drive) which others can use to verify claims

What I don't get is:

* how you know which 'approved' services to trust in the first place

* why you'd want all of that information public

* how it'd fix the original issue

You can treat the 'approved' services list using a whitelist, like a CA.

The other issue is that none of this is necessary. If I want to prove to Person X that Gov Y says that I have property Z, why can't I just present a cryptographically signed certificate saying I have property X. You could even have a similar revocation list as CA.

revocation seems easier with the blockchain. it just comes with too much other baggage to feel worth it.

In other news, smart contracts eliminated cancer.

> You can eliminate those problems entirely with a blockchain and smart contract that requires identity and proof of such.

You don't think if the problem were that easy to solve, it would be solved already? Throwing blockchain in the mix gets Facebook nothing that it couldn't get today by just partnering with organizations can verify identities.

Not to mention, the "fake news" issue isn't largely an identity issue — there are plenty of people and organizations willing to lie on their real accounts to further their sociopolitical agenda, and plenty more people who don't care if something's true so long as it confirms their existing viewpoints.

It's as easy as requiring identity, just like you have to for your bank account or credit card information.

It's as easy as requiring identity, just like you have to for your bank account or credit card information. They'd have to treat your FB account like your checking account.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com